That Hirshman Article

words by Ann Bartow posted December 2, 2005 - 11:04am

I have a couple of posts about That Hirshman Article up at Sivacracy.net, here and here if anyone is interested.


Ann Bartow's blog | login or register to post comments
Very interesting -- wish I had time now to read all the links
Comment by songbh posted December 2, 2005 - 2:12pm

For now I will post and run by saying only that it never fails to amaze me how discussions about feminism, work, and motherhood very rarely include any attention whatsoever to what children need. It's always about what women need to be happy, what marriages need to be successful, what parents need to stay sane or make ends meet. Never what children need to grow and thrive. Surely a feminist argument can be made for acknowledging and respecting the reality of children's needs, such that they become at least a factor in the equation, on both personal and societal levels.

(1)
login or register to post comments
kactus's picture
I couldn't agree more
Comment by kactus posted December 2, 2005 - 8:48pm

You put your finger right on something that bothers me a lot. This is also something that has come up a lot in welfare rights work--the common idea seems to be that the children of poor moms are better off if their moms go off to work and the children spend most of their growing years in daycare. Here in Wisconsin babies of 12 weeks are shuttled off to the daycare center.

I'm not saying daycare is wrong; but I'm also not saying that it's healthy for the kids to never spend time with a parent except in the evenings (for example) when the parent is tired. Many middle class and more-financially-stable moms have already figured that out--that's why they often choose to stay home for the first few years. I have an enormous amount of respect for that choice. And I'm sorry if I think that kids need caregiving from their parents more than they need daycare.

Of course the other side of the coin is that poor moms, especially those who depend on government assistance, are almost considered toxic to their kids, so the kids have to be separated from them as soon as possible.

I'm lucky (I say that with all irony) to be able to stay at home with my youngest daughter. Of course the only reason I can do that is that my disability prevents me from going off to work. The situation was different with my oldest--I was off to work, by necessity, before she was a month old. I'd give anything to get that time back.


(1)
login or register to post comments
bayprairie's picture
we had a fit of giggles
Comment by bayprairie posted December 2, 2005 - 3:17pm

some friends and i had a fit of giggles about it via email. i loved the cutting edge way she selected her feminists, via the wedding announcements in the sunday style section of the new york times!

and here i thought that was a better way to distingush the "society set" and wannabes.

anywho, the best response ive seen is on the main page downthread from this, although it was aimed at maureen dowd. its a nice fit for Ms. Hirshman too.

Feminism is not really about the fact that some smart women don't marry rich executive type men or don't marry at all. It isn't about tough, smart, women who rise to the top of their professions and spend some nights alone. Why is she measuring herself by what men do or won't do? It is about blue collar women getting day care, equal pay, and not having to put up with getting their asses pinched on the job. On this Roseanne gets it and Maureen doesn't.


(1)
login or register to post comments

Home » blogs » Ann Bartow's blog
» "That Hirshman Article"